workforce within the department of defense. it does not take that many people overlooking, 5, 10, or even 20% of the work force overlooking the transactions, that adds up to billions of dollars every year. is there any talk about lessening the regulations? guest: i do not think so. i do have to say that obviously defense companies are out to make money. a lot of the problems, though, are within the department defends itself and not being able to track how they are spending the money, what they are buying, how much, and what they already have in inventory. while you look at the company and you see were charging so much money for a tiny wheel, about this big, the onus is on

the defense department to get these costs under control. i do not think congress will just let them come especially with the budget coming down, looked the other way. host: megan scully with "national journal." and the piece is called "the pentagon premium." thank you for joining us. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. we go to the floor of the house of representatives. continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: we begin another week in political wonderland. the dow falls 100 points at the opening bell. what is it that we should do?

well, if we had the knowledge and problem solving skills of college sophomore economic students or women in a church study group, before the week is out we would establish some simple steps. first, we would understand that in a divided government with real economic challenges no one group is allowed especially those representing a minority of opinion to have their way entirely. we would begin by repealing the silly debt ceiling limitation. a law that was enacted in 1917 when the united states was about to embark upon a borrowing binge in world war i. it was used to look like we were more fiscally responsible and it is a charade we have done dozens of times since. the fact is these are debts we've already incurred and the united states will obligate them. what sort of charade are we going to go through until we finally own up? second, we would actually deal

with the challenges of unsustainable spending and tax cuts and the need to restore the economy and compete in a global world business climate. in an ideal world, my republican friends would actually show how they would control spending in a way that's agreeable within the political process. in fact, they would have two opportunities between now and the election to actually shut down the government if they didn't get their way to highlight that effort. next, we would deal with a real consensus on things like military spending. there's broad agreement across party lines. for example, why shouldn't we after more than half century at the end of world war ii, 20 years after the collapse of the soviet union brings those troops home from europe? of course we can do that.

and it's the start of many things that would help us restore military spending. next, we can deal meaningfully with our health care costs. many parts of the united states spend far less money for medicaid, medicare than the high spending areas. we know how to do this, and in fact those low-spending, high-valued areas could provide better quality health care. let's use the power of the health care reform act to accelerate those reforms and spread them, saving money and improving the quality of care. turn to the tax code. the american public would support a combined modest, reasonable tax reform that would actually raise some revenue by closing unjustified tax loopholes and be able to deal with more fairest simplicity. more people would actually pay their taxes. we would have more revenue and

there would be more confidence in the system. we would deal with our infrastructure deficit, something that doesn't get as much attention around here as it should, but we have a serious defishes in terms of -- deficiency in terms of basic infrastructure, transportation, sewer, water, trillions of deficit, undermining our competitiveness. we would have modest user fees to support needed improvement, intelligent use of credit that would strengthen not just the economy but improving our health and our global competitiveness. we would reform agricultural spending. those college students could figure out what the experts have told us, that we can actually provide more support for america's farmers and ranchers, improve the environment, put more resources in nutrition for our children in schools all the time strengthening american agriculture, saving money.

this isn't rocket science. finally, we would launch a very public american process on how to strengthen social security. protect that lifeline for our seniors in a way that brings people together rather than divides them. any rotary club with 10 people and an internet connection and a sheet of butcher paper can come up with one or three alternatives that would solve the problem over the next 50 years and would be acceptable for the american public. this doesn't have to be so hard. it doesn't need to risk knocking the economy into another tail spin. done right we can meet our real challenges in a way that puts us on a sustainable economic path. it rebuilds and renews america and unites our country to meet our challenges ahead. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. seeing no other speakers,

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

television, radio, online, and social media networking sites. find more content any time on the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. the c-span networks available through 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. a look at the deficit reduction

talks from this morning's open quote washington journal." the former u.s. comptroller general and now founder and ceo of the comeback american initiative, david walker print a good morning. forve said it is a bad idea the congress and president to flirt, so to speak, with the august 2nd deadline of hitting a possible debt default. what do you think is going on rit now and are concerned there is not a deal in place yet? guest: i am concerned. if everybody is true to their wo, and congressional leaders of both parties and the president, they will reach a deal at the last minute. they have all made a commitment to the american people that they will raisehe debt ceiling and not the fall. what we're seeing now is they're coming down to the 11th hour, which i think isnappropriate, but typical for washington.

the democrats are trying to get as good of the deal as they can and so are the republicans if they do not reach a deal, they should be held accountable. it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling limit. at the same time, we need to start putting our finances in order. host: has seven in the economic fallout, do have concern a deal has not been reached -- has there been an economic fallout, anti you have concerns the deal is not been reached? guest: callers have already started to adjust their behavior. if enough people start to do that, it could have an economic and pack. i think the markets have not reacted to an extensive because they believe the elected officials will deliver on their commitment, that there will be a deal. here is the key. it is not just a matter of raising the debt ceiling limit. it is whether or not they do something meaningful to demonstrate to the credit rating agencies, to the farm lenders, and the american peoe th

they will start taking steps to put our finances in order because they are out of control right now. host: i'm going to read from an abc news piece online. some people can leaders are doubtful armageddon-like consequences will come to pass. they say they're not afraid of the deadline. republican allen west put it, or inhe words of jim jordan, ohio, it is not like the world in august 2nd. what is your interpretation of this message? other house republicans have echoed the opinion there is nothing to be concerned about. what is your message to them? guest: the truth is, nobody knows for sure what will happen if the largest economy on earth, the world's temporary superpower, 60% of the currency, has a technical default and has to decide which bills it will pay in which it will not pay.

filipinos. the fact is, those statements are totally irresponsible. when the world would you want to pay with a tactical nuclear weapon? that is what we're dealing with. we do not know what will happen if it goes off. at least we are experimenting with real nuclear weapons but we have not experimented with this. those statements are irresponsible. host: david walker is our guest. here are the phone numbers to call to join the conversation -- host: if you manage to get through on the funds, turn down your tv. -- if you manage to get through, turn down your tv. david walker, what is the scenario you like to see happen next couple of weeks?

you have laid out some possible ideas, some solutions to this situation. what would you ideally like to see happen? guest: i think we have to be realistic with regard to what can happen before the 2012 election. both parties have a different view about how to put our nation's finances in order. right or wrong, significant number of republicans have taken the pledge dealing with taxes. interestingly, we can achieve comprehensive tax reform that will end up generating more revenues as part of running the base, lowering rates that will generate more revenues and not violate that pledge. but we cannot do that before the 2012 election. we're going to have to reach an agreement to increase the debt ceiling limit, hopefully, enough to get is passed the 2012 election. in exchange for specific cuts

that will equal or exceed that. we cannot please get $1 trillion at of defense over the next 10 years, at least $1 trillion out of health care and other expenses including interest expense, and lots of ideas are laid out in restoring fiscal sanity report. ultimately, we will mean more revenue. those revenues will have to come as part of comprehensi tax reform. realistically, that will not happen until after the 2012 elections. host: in coming from twitter. guest: we do talk about drawn do forces in southwest asia to 45,000 of the end of 2014 under a pre-emptive scenario. if a of a debt crisis, we will have to draw down a lot faster. we could save a lot of money from reducing our presence in southwest asia.

but the pentagon has become a bloated burucracy. it has a tremendous amount of overhead. there are a number of other ideas that would allow us to be of a cut tremendous sums from defense without comprising national security. >host: republican line, north carolina. caller: i would love for everyone to go out there today and bought the book by ann rand in 1957, depicting a exactly what is happening today. if you keep penalizing the producs, the ones supplying the jobs, penalizing the producers, there is notoing to be any more money to do anything with. people are not going to be able to survive to get food to anything. people that are not producing keep having a hand out.

if you keep giving it to those in penalizing the producers, en the producers are going to end up with their hand out. they're going to be stricken with their hands tied. guest: the me come back if i can. i'm familiar with the book. it haseen read by millions of people. it is a very interesting book. i guess the issue, let's touch on the tax aspect read it right now, 51% of americans do not pay any income taxes. they pay payroll taxes. the problem is, this peril taxes are not adequate to fund medicare, social security. you cannot have in a democracy and majority of americans growing not contrary to the constitutional rules of the federal government. the median tax rate is 18.8%

grid that is how warren buffett secretary and the in more tax rate than him rh his income comes primarily through capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. in this report, we talk about how to engage in comprehensive tax reform that will improve economic growth, and hence our posture, whichever one is contending a fair share to generate more revenue. that is very important read by the way, it would not violate the tax pledge, although, i believe such pledges are totally inappropriate and should be rescinded and rejected. host: we're talking with david walker. without reforms by 2012, will only cover social security, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt. 2046, revenue will not even cover interest costs.

we can see last year and 2022 and 2046. you can see the time line or the revenue is an honor the things that have to be spent for and money is allocated to. let's go to a comment on twitter. if we had a downgrade, would it be that bad? we would only be downgraded to aa rating that is still a pretty good bond rating, in my book. what do you think, mr. walker? guest: we would have to pay higher interest rate, but how much higher would they be? you just saw that graf that showed under our present pact based on historical levels o revenue about 18.2% of the economy, the only thing we could pay for in 2046 based on the current pact is interest. that is without a significant increase in interest rates. by now we have historically low interest rates, but that could change dramatically if our credit rating changes. for everyone% increase, 100

basis points, about $15billion a year in interest. what you get for that? as we say in the south, shinola. nothing. host: we go to the democrat line. caller: first of all, i am truly upset. if i do not talk intelligently, please, excuse me. greed, greed, greed. the ri and powerful are getting rich and powerful. the rich and powerful are hellbent on destroying this country because of the fear of losing their money. we should raise their taxes on their rich. i am paying taxes big time on my life. the thing is, i am so upset with the ignorance, with the calls that come in. it is devastating to say the rich are helping the poor to get jobs is absolutely ludicrous.

i am so upset because there is a goal to tear down the little guy. of course the goal is to destroy obama, which is unspeakable. the middle class and the poor are suffering. all because of money. money, money. that is what is so upsetting to me. guest: there is absolutely no question there is a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in the world and the u.s. as well. it is not just an issue of wealth. it is also an issue of education. important, the comprehensive tax reform that is outlined in the comeback america restoring fiscal sanity report under both from march would end up resulting with everybo and that making more than a stated percentage will pay something. thoswho end up having more and make more will pay more.

we will have an even more progressive tax system. t the way we do it is through comprehensive tax reform that will end up making se we equate taxes on labor, with taxes on capital. we will have a more economic system that is more vibrant and will stimulate economic growth and generate more revenues at historic levels. host: maryland, independent line. caller: social security is overrated. if you want to be poor, make your plans to live on social security. i have social security, 7.6% of my income a whole life. the other is a vanguard account.

we pay 10,000 a year on vanguard. we have it for eit years. with all of the recessions, we got $1 million. we have been using that for 10 years. we did it ourselves with the difficulty. on the other hand, we put in about $300,000 to the federal government -- a pension plan is when you put your money into overtime, it grows. when you allow the government to take over your retirement, you get what you deserve. that is a threat with the president of the united states saying, we may not be able to give you your money. we have been hoodwinked.

guest: a couple of key points. social security is not a pension system. it is a show shall insurance system where there are survivors benefits. it was never intend to be the sole form of retirement income. it was intended to be a foundation. like with a house, you have to add to the foundation to have a habitable drill -- dwelling. over 56% americans rely primarily on social security. it is paying out more than it is being paid into. it can be made solvent come sustainable, indefinite leave. we did that by laying out of this report in fiscal insanity.

-- fiscal sanity. the younger you are, the better off you are financially. we need to get our savings rate up. pension plans, other vehicles. we need to move through some type of universal savings arrangement, because the system we he now is not working. host: the founder and ceo of the combat americas initiative. -- come back america initiative. new york, republican line, joining the conversation. caller: thanks for taking my call and thinks mr. walker for

his years of service that has had an impact on some aspects of american life. the question i want to pose to him is that, one of the reasons i believe congress, senate, and the presidents are having a problem devoping a consensus on this issue is that they cannot send the debt ceiling without addressing structurally to some aspects of the deficit in terms of how we are going to pay for . i believe the rating agencies have sat with both the senate and house of representatives lives -- they can extend the debt ceiling without addressing the deficit in a meaningful way that they could still risk having the country's credit rating fallaway. is that true? guest: that is true. there are two issues.

raising the debt limit. they have to recognize the u.s. garment spent $4 billion a day more than it has taken in. what is going to be done in conjunction with raising the debt limit. we have to demonstrate that we now know we are living beyond our means. we will take steps to put our finances in order. we cannot spend billions of dollars a day more than we take in without having a day of reckoning. we need to do something meaningful. we have to recognize what we are dog now versus what we are doing later like social insurance reforms. we have to recognize that some things will not be able to be done until after the election. comprehensive health care reform

-- we have to engage american people with the tough choices. they deserve to know and to hear what the proper path forward is. host: would it be less contentious if we had not entered an election year? is the political element heightening this here? guest: no question. close margins in the house and senate. they want to keep the house. president obama wants to get t be elected. republicans want a republican elected. there are pressures on the right into the left.

never say never. it is fine to make a commitment to one's constituents, but to take a pledge to special interest groups on the right or the left is inappropriate. there is a reason why we have this stalemate. we are headed off a clifff we do not change course. host: next caller. caller: i am very angry with boehner. republicans are stalling the economy under this president so they can make sure they have the voters so frustrated so that they be elected the same bunch that put us out in this heavy deficit situation right now. they are using the port to play

political games with that this present and cutting back is to lay off people to cause unemployment to go up, cutting important programs and social organizations that we need to ke unemployment go up. they are using the american public naiveness. barack obama came to the meeting table several times. when he trieto give them what they want, they say no.

host: she brought up raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. guest: i understand that you are upset. many americans have gone from concern to discussed. the american people are smarter than people give them credit for. if it looks like one party is disproportionately responsible, and we do have a u.s. debt crisis, they will be held accountable at the polls. it is important that we work together to reach a rnable compromise, because all of us will be affected one way or the other. our fiscal situation is so challenging that he will not solve the problems by taxing the rich. if you look at our total liabilities, retiree health care, contingencies, medicare, social security, all of these things -- as of september 2010, we were in a $61 trillion whole.

that is over $500,000 per household. you could eliminate all of the bush obama tax cuts, you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and eliminate all foreign aid, which people think is a big number, but it is not. that is aut 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised to much, which did too long to restructure. we will have more revenues, but we need to go about it in an intelligent way to make our system simpler, fairer, more competitive and will promote job growth and iovation. under the comeback american initiative, there is an additional money for helpinghe economic recovery and deal with

unemployment. the less spending reductions of the next few years is over $3 trillion. if we do not put o finances in order, we will have a lot bigger problems in the future. >> congress should be fired if they cannot reach a deficit deal according to senator warner. you started off this segment same congress needs to take action. there is a problem with their effectiveness. a but point to you think congress will be fired? guest: the american people

decide whether or not to read- hire ather member of congress. weave another election coming up in november 2012. no deal, no pay. they are one of the first ones to get cut off, because they are not doing their job. and no retroactive pay either. we have to open the recognize that both political parties are responsible for where we are. spending has been out of control, especially since 2002. we have made more promises than we can afford. very few tax cuts pay for themselves. we need election reform. we need denigrate and --

integrated reform and term limits. we do not needareer politicians that are more concerned about getting reelected and doing their job. >> you may run for office in the state of connecticut. e you looking at that possibility? among those pushing you to run is the national republican senatorial committee. why would you run? guest: i was an independent -- i am an independent and was a republican prior to that. i do not like politics or career politicians. my view is our country is at a critical crossroads. the decisions that need to be made will determine our country's future and whether the future for my grandchildren and

others will be better in the past. i have ticket -- decide if i will dedicate the rest of my life to this type of public service. i am thinking about it, but i am not going to rush into any decions. host: your politicallignment has changed over the years. you have taken a break from one political party. how would that affect your run and where would you sit? guest: i was born and raised in alabama and florida. if you were a democrat, you were disenfranchised, because of the elections were decided in the primaries. i went from being a conservative democrat to a moderate republican. i was ahead of the wave.

in a job, you had to be independent. i decided to become an independent. i remained one when i left that job, because it has put me in good stead. i have been able to deal with republicans and democrats. many americans are independent. you do not have to run with one of the parties or you could run as an independent and with one of the parties. i would have to decide that down the road. host: david walker is president and ceo of the comeback america initiative. he served as the comptroller general of the united states and head of the u.s. government accountability office for almost 10 years. let us go to massachusetts on our independent line.

caller: thank you, mr. walker. you have talked so much common sense this morning. i do feel from what i have been listening to that republicans have been for tax reform. i am very frightened with what i hear. all i hear is about of class warfare around a blame game. i think both parties are totally responsible for where the country is today. i do not think singing who did what will solve anything. we need a wake-up call in this country. american people better wake up. we are in serious trouble. host: what do you think it is going to take? caller: we need to cut our

spending. the american people will have a hard lesson to learn. we are spending too much money. guest: i agree with you 110%. both pitical parties are responsible for where we are. we can blame a lot of people, but it is sought. to be productive. we need to recognize reality. the government has promised to much, grown into big, which it long to respond, spent more than it has. we need to make sure that we discharge our constitutional responsibilities, have a sound in some credible safety net for those that truly need it, while doing things to grow our ecomy, make sure people pare their fair share with regard to taxes. that is what restoring fiscal sanity and this free market does.

republicans are for comprehensive tax reform, ando are democrats. we will do a comprehensive tax reform, but not get it until ter the 2012 elections. we can do it in a way that would make our situation better. we have a spending revenue problem. we need to start soon to make these tough choices so the american economy can work for us and not against us. > host: a question on twitter. instead of paying 6%, we may play 22%. -- pay 22% if we fail. could that change the bond rating? guest: it is not going to take that dramatic a decline on the first step. we are not saying 6% now.

that is what the scary situation is. we have historically low intere rates. people are not buying our bonds. we can sell short-term debt, because it is still a safe investment relatively. investment rates go up and we will feel it very quickly. we have a lot in these low rates over a long term. that is the risk. our risk could be downgraded if we raise the debt ceiling limit and does something credible to demonstrated tt we will start putting our finances in order, dealing with out-of-control

spending and other expenditures. host: john, republican caller. >> i see your point of a few my question -- i see your point of view. what can be done to rebuild the small business of america under 500 employees. i think that is the key to revenue. i do not worry about b corporations. congress has been irresponsible. they have permitted wall street to be the same, during the last 10 yrs or maybe prior to that as well.

how important do you think it is if you believe it is? anks. guest: small business is the engine of innovation, growth, and job creation in the united states. one of the things we have to recognize is we need to provide for certainty with regard to our tax laws, regulatory structure, and we do not have either one right now. the u.s. government needs to do a lot more to help sll business with regard to expos. major corporations do not have a problem. they do not need help. small businesses do. we can learn from japan actively partners with business to promote japanese products and

exports, even in a free-trade world. there is a lot more we should be doing to stimulate that part of the economy. host: bipartisan trio says tax or 0 -- they are offering a tryst on the chronic funding problem. bi bradley, and our guest, david walker, says levin taxes on oil would drive down oil contentions. set the scenario for us. guest: this is an example of how the federal government has gotten totally out of control. i partnered with former senator bill bradley, a respected republican that is a former governor, to talk about non- partisan solutions thacan get

bipartisan support. the structure is deteriorating dramatically. i live inonnecticut. i can literally run faster than that train goes between new york city in the stamford conn.. most of our investments is not based on economic situations. the so-called trust fund that was supposed to fund our surface transportation is dry. we now are generally -- if you look at other countries, every other country into having a self sustaining critical infrastructure system. the plan for making investments is based on natural

considerations plaint -- planned well in advance. so you can plan intelligently that will stimulate growth and stimulate jobs. we need to learn fro others. this is a comprehensive plan to put us on a more sustainable path. it is an example of what needs to be done, because the u.s. government is largely based on the 1950's. the world has changed a lot since then. host: democratic caller, boynton beach, florida. caller: we seem to be spending quite a bit of mining on students' education, but they are not prepared, and they do not have a good life skills. they claim they do not have enough skilled worke. they encouraging

education by providing grants, assistance, and money. we also hear there are some states where pple are paying for the busing of their children. this is supposed to be part of the education process. people are being put upon so severely to pay for things that citizens are paying for through their taxes. they are claiming they do not have enough skilled workers, and they keep bringing people into this country from other countries to do jobs that our own citizens should be able to do. about this. talk there are two systems in the united states where we spend double per person as compared to

the average for industrialized nations, and we get an average results. we spent double per person and we get below average results. k through 12th education and health care. the system is broken. you cannot throw more money at a syst where you are spending double and not kidding result and expect things to change. we cannot compete on wages. we have to compete on a scale, -- skill, innovation, and those types of things. the world is moving to an economy based on brains. we need to have several paths. some of our students, no matter what their gender or race or ethnicity will not go on to college. others will be trained in trades.

we need to do a better job in financial literacy. other sectors should be doing more. we should have more charitable contributions the truth is, the not-for-profit sector is going to be more important as remove afford and as the government restructures. host: here is a list of the fiscal fitness index. the united states is 28 on the line. what can the u.s. one from these other countries? guest: we can learn a lot.

we are not as great as we think we are. we have lost our way. we have a tendency to think at we cannot learn and not from others. that is flat wrong. australian, is zealand, sweden, have risen to these challenges. we need to learn from others and from history. a travel over 90 countries around the world it has been part of my makeup to look to others to learn the positives and avoid the negatives. host: san diego, independent

caller. caller: thank you for your service. you are very smart. i would love in your thoughts on various industries. did they give aig a triple a rating and then the next day went bankrupt. i would love your opinion on those people. guest: the credit rating agencies perform a very important function. they do a better job with regard to the private-sector than the public sector. there have been notable exceptions. there were a viety of instruments that were directly contributed to the sub-prime crisis that happened back in 2008. here is what is important.

a disconnectetween who is benefiting and who is going to pay the price as the bubble burst, not enough transparency in, too much debt, not enough focus on cash flow. failure to act until a crisis is at their doorstep. there are a lot of similarities. credit agencies are starting to step up to the plate. there are starting to recognize interest rates to a greater extent. they are starting to do a better job. you have to understand what they do. they do not consider off-balance sheet obligations. if you are a foreign investor, they do not consider currency risk at a. understand what they're basically saying. i do not think we will default.

we are on an unsustainable path to threaten the future of this country and the role of americans. we need to focus on it. host: >> the supreme court is now available as a standard and enhanced e-book. the 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices, including an interview with the newest supreme court justice, elena kagan. there are multimedia clips from all of the justices. available now wherever e-books are sold.

house members are taking a short break now. on the calendar, interior department spending and extending the term of robert muller, of monks other bills. we will have more live hut -- live house coverage after noon, eastern. the british parliament is in recess for the rest of the summer. next, a look back at the major events in debates in the british parliament over the last few months. the bbc produced this one-hour program called "the record review." id takes us through the events of the british phone hacking scandal, the obama visit to the united kingdom, and banning certain animal hunting. it lasts about one hour.

>> for the grandson of a canyon that served as a cook by and the british army to stand before you as president of the united states. >> this is a shocking scandal. yet >> did you ever receive payments? >> absolutely not. i cannot believe that you suggested that. >> the fact that we do not have a democratic legitimacy undermines our system of checks and balances. why does he not know about these arguments? [yelling] he is in the pocket of the union. >> parliament returned and politicians enjoyed a long weekend break.

the first was at the other large building, westminster abbey. the future king was marrying the future queen and the comments had some appropriate words. >> i wanted to take this opportunity to wish the prince and kathryn middleton great joy on their great day. i know that they look forward to attending the wedding tomorrow. it remains whether -- remains to be seen, after reading these great minds from the nation's greatest playwright. this comes from sonnet 136, shakespeare. [reads] >> the next day, the wedding went on without a hitch before a

worldwide audience. william and kate became a man and wife. everyone has their favorite image of the day. six days after the nation and attended the royal wending -- royal wedding, there was a referendum on changing the voting system. the vote was no on the alternative vote. but in northern ireland to the people were electing more members. results of vary between surprising and stunning. in northern ireland it was a night of triumph. the most notable result came from scotland.

starting be inevitable referendum that would one day soon bring independence. huge, global events had happened. wanted man wast shot dead by american special forces. osama bin laden had been living in a protected mansion house one hour from islamabad. helicopters landed a group of u.s. navy seals. the al qaeda leader was killed. his body was buried at sea. the world wondered after the retaliation. >> today in particular we should remember the brave servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism around the world.

osama bin laden was the manner responsible for 9/11, the terrific killing of americans that remains to this day the largest loss of british life in any terrorist attack. the head of a family group put it as this -- we were raised obviously never to hope for someone's death, but we are willing to make an exception in this case. he was evil personified the and we are willing to make an exception. for those that lost family members on 9/11, i am sure that my friend agrees that the sobering reality is that things are unchanged after the death of osama bin laden. threats remain. adequate resources and effective cooperation remain essential.

>> where he had been found and had been living for the past five years, the idea that this country would continue to finance and encourage, the pakistani government needs to conclude what happened. >> the reaction in the commons to the death of osama bin laden. another big part of parliament stood well about the electoral fray. that part, down there. better known as the house of lords. after a century of commissions, committees, inquiries, the latest was unveiled by the deputy prime minister. support for the plan was thin. >> the second chamber will have a mandate. >> does the prime minister not

agree it would be a slender -- slander for us to decide what the function should be before we decide how it is made up? otherwise, there is the situation of picking the team before we decide what game will be played. this is another road show brought to us by the same people who thought the british people wanted the alternative vote. and elected lord is a strong lord. that strengthens parliament. does he find it ridiculous that after 13 years of abject failure, they're only interested in featherbedding? >> more than 100 cued up --

qued up to speak. >> they sent us quietly into the yard. >> this last bill will sink. what is before us is something of a dog's breakfast. all previous reforms in the house of lords have taken the balance away from the house of lords towards the house of commons. this one tilsit the other way for the first time. we're going to have a house that is elected. it will have more power to itself. i cannot imagine the decision to oppose this would have gotten through a chamber elected on a

different matter and in a different time with political weight in this chamber than what existed on the other end. we perform the function of the chamber. that is not our only function. we're also part of the checks and balances in this country. the fact we do not have democratic legitimacy undermines our capacity to act as the checks and balances. the powers of the house are unlimited. do they understand just what we are capable of doing if we have democratic legitimacy? >> i am not against the idea of the elected house. there has always been a principle in favor of an elected second chamber. i have become more in favor of it in the past year. nothing has been done in 100 years because it did not need to be done. that is just as good an

argument. >> the argument over reforming the house of lords, if the government ditches its plans, that would not be so unusual. there's been a series of embarrassing u-turns by david cameron. the first was over political prisoners. they changed the sentences of those who pled guilty early. he suggested in a bbc radio interview that there was serious and less serious rate, he blundered back. a storm blew up. ed milliband seized the moment. >> you should look at the record. he should not be in his post at the end of the day. that is the first thing he should do. the second thing he has to do

is drop this policy. the policies they are defending is the idea that if you plead guilty to rape, you get to lved.nce hav that means rapist's could spend as little as 15 months in prison. that is not acceptable. it should be dropped. the aim of plea-bargaining is to make sure that more people get prosecuted and convicted. you save the victim of having to go through the court process and find out of the end of the culprit will give a guilty plea of the last minute. that is what the government is looking at. when we listen to the consultation, we will announce our conclusions. he needs to be patient until we do that. >> the prime minister just hide

behind the consultations. it is not good enough. >> there were urging kenneth clarke to drop his sentencing plans. >> this is an arbitrary proposal. will the secretary of state becoming back in a few months suggesting we change it to get a few more? why not scrap the whole system altogether? this is a slippery slope. it is ludicrous to me. there is no evidence at all. i suspect the prime minister will kick this bonkers idea into the long grass soon. >> a few weeks later came the scrapping of the whole idea. >> i thought it would survive of

record to ago. a thought i could have some judicial discretion to solve the problem. you cannot. for that reason, we are sticking with the present system. that is what consultation is all about. >> i welcome the latest decision. this whole row of allowing bad people into classrooms, all the loopholes on monitoring sex offenders, this creates an ugly picture of the government attitude towards victim. >> u-turns should be done with panache when you have to do them. i do not think this is one at all. i do not. >> from law and order to rubbish

removal. the secretary declared he would be bringing back weekly bin collection after many councils has switched. it had created a problem from rotten food. the weekly collections were called off. >> the secretary of state and government said to much acclaim that is a basic right for every english man and woman to be able to put their remnants in their to wait two having waiti weeks. to be collected. perhaps the secretary can explain why the government position has changed. they made the same promise of weekly collection and then broke it. they spend money on a complicated recoverecycling sche

that turned it into a curiosity. it is unacceptable to have rotten food waste hanging around for two weeks in bins. i would hope we would have at least weekly collections so we do not have the danger and risk. >> i said in response to an earlier question from the right, honorable lady that we believe it is important to support local authorities who want to provide weekly collection. we will make available 10 million pounds to assist them in that. >> why is she so selfishly hanging on to it when she could have let the community -- >> i might remind the honorable gentleman that we are a coalition government. [response from the crowd]

he might like to read the coalition agreement. the commitment is the government would work towards a zero waste economy and encourage councils to pay people to reduce latrine and promote recycling as set out in our review today. >> then came a third u-turn. primary-care trusts were abolished. cp's were taking over health care commissioning with more input from the private sector. they announced legislation to allow in listening exercise to take place. in june, the prime minister and deputy prime minister were listening to salutations inside in london hospital as the government unveiled its modified plan. it looked suspiciously like another u-turn.

it seemed to be about satisfying the unhappy liberal democrats, one half of the coalition. >> will emphasize the commissioners duty to promote patient choice. the choice of any qualified provider will be limited to those areas where there is a national or local carrier, insuring that competition is based solely on quality. through the recommendations of the forum and our response, we have demonstrated our willingness to listen and improve our plan. >> it is humiliating. the health secretary has had the policy taken out of his hands. he spent the last nine months telling anyone who criticized the government plans that they were wrong and did not understand. today he admits he is wrong. how can he argue this latest blueprint for the biggest reorganization in history with

any credibility or integrity? >> i think most of the public welcomes the changes announced today. i welcome you turns -- u-turns when they are the right thing. i am concerned about the bureaucracy that will be rising after the changes. it could be worse than what we have got. i like to be reassured on that point. this is clear evidence of a listening government. ]the group's response nhs now needs consensus across of political parties, for everybody to put their money where their mouth is to support this moving forward. >> does the secretary understand when the labor government was in

power increased the debt to $ 111 billion in one decade. we are now witnessing a new frankenstein monster from the liberals. >> 3 e.u. tuu-turns in a single. was it a sign of the government rushing into policies and getting them wrong? >> it is unusual for the government to have so many u- turns so early in a crisis. it played badly with the tabloid press. the newspapers did not like what the justice secretary was going to do. if you look at the health reforms, that was the reality of

coalition politics kicking in. the liberal democrats kicked a stink over them. as for the collections row, in the end came down to money. the community secretary was not able to do it. it was the inalienable right of an englishman to have the remains of dinner cleared away at least once a week. >> the euro is going through its biggest crisis ever because of the debt of certain countries. the biggest so far has been increased. protests began when austerity measures were announced to cut spending and increase taxes. help was given to the greek economy. everybody wanted to know if they were contributing to bailing out greece. >> britain is not in the euro.

while i am prime minister, it will never be. we should not be involved in the euro areas internal arrangements. only euro countries were involved in the first bailout. only eurozone countries have been in the discussion about further bailout. it is right not to use the e.u.- wide financial stability mechanism for future aid to greece. >> the worst outcome for the british economy from the greek crisis would be a disorderly and chaotic the of fault -- default and departure from the euro. what discussions have we had about preparing for that default which is inevitable? the president himself has said that it does not need to be disorderly to dissolve the

without the currency's much destruction. >> what is causing disorder and the fact they're going bankrupt. nothing said in this chamber will alter that. if greece can neither withdraw or default, then good money via our money or the imf will be wasted bailing out greece. why not leave an orderly withdrawal of greece from the euro? >> is it time to dispose of these things? checks seem to have become an endangered species. the council now says there is no better paper of truth to. the chairman did not look happy

we came before the commons treasury committee. >> we must of a viable set of alternatives in place. otherwise, we will not be in the position to support withdrawal of checks. it is prepared to continue to accept an issue checks beyond 2016 if the criteria is not met. it seems clear is going to happen. they are certain it is not going to happen. they're saying if it is unrealistic on this timetable, and we delay the timetable. the timetable is not set in stone. if it looks unrealistic to achieve the condition where we have acceptable alternatives in place by 2016, we will delay the timeline. >> how do you send a message

like that to customers who rely on checks? >> i need to look at the bank mandates. without seeing it, i do not know me. >> this is a mess. it is a shocking mess. it is a scandal. you are trying to tell us there has not been a colossal error in judgment. it is even worse than that. you have the banks telling customers that the checks are for tehe chop. >> i cannot account for what barclays is saying. and to represent what the council is telling me. they are telling me what i have just said. >> the london olympics are only one year away.

the year has flown by. the excitement for the games was tempered brutally with close to a million people realized they did not have the tickets they applied for. that included politicians. >> can we have a statement about the tickets debacle? how can they devise a system where 1 million people did not get anything? people had to register on the french website to get a sensible way of trying to purchase olympic tickets. should we be getting the committee to sort this out? >> there were many more bids for tickets than tickets available. inevitably, there have to be rationing system. soon facings were issu the issue. >> the government has been allocated 9000 tickets for the olympic games. >> will my friend reassure the

house that none of those tickets will be provided to government employees or u.k. politicians in particular? >> i am happy to reassure my honorable friend about the details of the tickets. 3000 have been allocated to staff associated with the project. they will be purchased and are available through a ballot. 2400 tickets are being made available to towns and cities. they will be purchased. 2900 tickets will be made available to guests of the government including international business guests and dignitaries to make sure we secured funding. 6000 schools of currently signed up for other tickets. >> ordinary mp's are now in charge of part of a timetable. it is a lively debate producing

unlikely heroes. he put down a motion and vote on banning circus animals. he came under pressure to withdraw his motion. >> i did not pick a fight with the prime minister. i have a message. i may just be a little council house lad from a poor background. but i will not be cowed on an issue of field passionately about and have conviction about. there may be some people with other backgrounds on the other side. we need a generation of politicians with a bit of spine and not jelly. i will not be bullied by the whips. this is an issue i campaigned on for many years. in the last parliament, i spoke on the animal welfare bill.

i have consistently campaigned on this issue. the house to support my motion. let's get britain back to where was the last century, leading the world on animal welfare issues rather than lagging behind. let's begin and to the use of wild animals in circuses. -- let's put an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. >> it has been a roller-coaster for ed milliband who just completed his first year as leader of the opposition. he decided on a different tactic to trip up david cameron on details. he challenged the prime minister over a new system of benefit payments to cancer patients. >> this is what they say. >> i think it is a disgrace that conservative members are

shocking. -- shouting. this is what they are saying. many people will lose this benefit simply because they have not recover quickly enough. mr. speaker, will he now admit that 7000 cancer patients are losing up to 94 pounds a week? we have listened carefully to the cancer support. we have also made sure that someone is reviewing all the medical tests that take place under the system. pa>> the cancer charities have been making the argument for months. i am amazed the prime minister does not know about these arguments. why does he not know? the house of commons is voting on the bill tonight. he should know about these. >> will he now admit that 7000 cancer patients are losing up to 94 pounds a week? >> i have answered his question

three times. i have given a full explanation. the whole point about benefit reform is that there are proper medical tests to support those who cannot work as a compassionate country should. we make sure that those who can work have to go out to work so that we do not reward bad behavior. it is not about the people who are terminally ill. it is about people recovering from cancer. >> a victory on point for ed anmilliband. at the end of june, he made a tactical mistake. he again brought up reforms to the health services. that was in a day when everyone was talking about strikes by teachers. david cameron pounced. >> he promised a better deal for

the patients and things are getting worse. people are asking what he is doing for our nhs. >> the whole country will noticed that a time when people are worried about strikes, he cannot ask about those because he is in the pocket of the unions. the whole country will have noticed that at a time when greece is facing huge problems over its deficit, he cannot talk about greece because of his plans to make britain light breeze. >> david cameron came out on top of that particular session. what were we to make of ed milliband's performances? >> is first humans were characterized by what might be politely called mixed reviews of his performance -- his first few months were characterized by what might be politely called

mixed reviews of his performance. they decided that david cameron is weak on details. they started asking -- ed milliband started asking detailed questions about certain policies like welfare reform. in one of us will case, he brought up the impact on cancer sufferers. that showed the weakness of the details on his own policies. they thought it was a successful tactic. i think you will see more of that in the future. >> the queen went to ireland for a visit. he was widely regarded as historic. she was the first british monarch to visit ireland in 100 years. she went to dublin. he was the scene in 1920 of killing of 14 people during the

war of independence. she went to the irish castle. the queen reflected on the turbulent relationship of britain and ireland. >> with the benefit of historical hindsight, we can all see things we wish had been done all.rently or not alt >> it does the visit of the queen to the irish republic this week demonstrate not just your own personal courage redo her own personal courage but also with a reservations we may have about one particular aspect of her visit? it demonstrates the extent of the improvement in relations. it also demonstrates a recognition and opportunity to build cooperation to fight the

terrorists who still plagued us in north ireland and the republic. >> the gentleman is right in every respect. it is a remarkable visit. it demonstrates the relationship between britain and the republic of ireland is strong and has never been stronger. i think the scenes on our tv screen last night of the visit that her majesty may to heal the wounds of the past and look to a very bright future between our two countries are remarkable and huge welcome. >> david cameron on the hugely symbolic visit of the queen to arlen. next time, britain was playing host. u.s. president and first lady were in town. they met the queen and prince philip. there was the showing of the honor guard at the palace. there was a memorable summer

barbecue with the president and prime minister in charge. president obama then came to parliament to address the mp's. >> i am told the last three speakers here have been the pope, her majesty the queen, and nelson mandela. that is either a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke. [laughter] >> his speech touched on the intervention in libya. >> it would have been easy to say that none of this was our business. is moreon's sovereignty important than the slaughter of civilians within its borders. that argument carries weight with some, but we're different.

we embrace a broader responsibility. >> on to the british and american experience of immigration and diversity. >> it is possible for the sons and daughters of former colonies to sit here as members of this great parliament. for the grandson of a kenyan who served as a british kokanee army to stand before you as president of the united states. >> a fortnight later, the commons and boards were on their best behavior again for this man. he reached 90 on june 10. he is the longest serving royal council in british history having spent six decades talking to people on a few thousand official visits. sometimes in his own right and often alongside the queen. he recalled his noble record in

support for environmental causes. >> has done this with a down-to- earth approach that the british people fighting during. endearing. duri there have been several books published of his favorite sayings. my own favorite was after a long flight, and eager to please official asked him how the flight was. he replied that the plane goes up and comes back down. he was just like that. [laughter] of light to go on but i am reminded about his remarks. it is not just say to advice for the clergy in the pulpit but also for us in this place. he said the mind cannot absorb with the backside cannot enter. >> is a formidable man and does

not suffer fools gladly. [laughter] >> he was a member of parliament. it was our 10th anniversary. we were all invited to buckingham palace. the duke came up to him and said, what did you do before you got this job? he said he worked in the trade union. the duke immediately replied, thunder all then. he was somewhat offended thinking he would be able to retaliate. the duke replied that he had fought in the second world war. >> there's a change to have the marquee is financed.

it will be replaced with a sovereign support grant based on the share of profits from the crown of states. said we were talking about a cut price monarchy. >> when i see the coronation coach pulled through the streets of london, i want to see it polled by the finest courses the money can buy. i want to see it building with the finest gold. -- gilded with the finest gold. that is the type of monarchy we want. i urge the chancellor, even in this time of austerity when i know we are in it together and opposition has maxed out the credit card, i think we should look after her majesty. >> from the outside, parliament may seem to be just a fine

building, a place where people make speeches. in fact the parliamentary chambers possess special powers. i am not talking about harry potter. it is a place where the politicians can speak with complete freedom. they enjoy a privilege. that means they can say anything they like without any legal comeback. in may, one used privilege to prevent reports from appearing about his love life. >> it is obviously impractical to imprisoned everyone who has seen the reports on twitter. >> let me just say to the honorable gentleman that i know he has already done it. but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose. he may finish his question in an

orderly way. >> the question is what the government's view is on the enforceability of a law that clearly does not have public consent. >> it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law. >> the former chief of the royal bank of scotland wanted to stop the media stories from appearing about him. what was the story anyway? >> would he accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the royal bank of scotland? how can it the right to hide the alleged relationship between good one and a senior colleague? if true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance. not even the financial services authority would be allowed to

know about it. >> i do not think it is proper for me to comment on individual cases. some of those are before the courts. >> is it not intolerable that important sections of the media in pursuit of a commercial agenda in competition for getting more titillating material to increase sales think nothing of regularly bribing informants, surreptitious surveillance, tapping telephones, using methods normally associated with the activities of the secret police in a totalitarian society -- is this not a national disgrace? should parliament and government face up to their responsibilities and legislate on the issue? >> those words to gone far greater significance in july when the newspaper phone hacking scandal discovered new life and

became a big storm. the unfolding events would not look out of place on the pages of a hollywood movie script. it here is a labor mp reminding us of the sequence of events. >> there cannot be a single person in the land to is not by the news that they hacked the telephone of millie dowler and deleted some messages leaving her family to think she was still alive. that is not a newspaper believing it is above the law. that is a national newspaper playing god with the emotions of a family. those involved and his negligence allowed this to happen and those who covered it up should be truly ashamed.

>> anyone could hack into her telephone, listen to her family's frantic telephone calls, delete them -- it is immoral and a disgrace. given the gravity of what has occurred, will the prime minister support the calls for a public inquiry to take place as soon as practical into the culture and practices of british newspapers? >> yes, we do need to have an inquiry into what has happened. longer talking about politicians and celebrities. we're talking about murder victims having their telephones tapped. it is disgusting what has taken place. i think everyone will be revolted by what they've heard and seen on their television screens. >> in an emergency debate the

issue was taking over bskyb. >> we have the public inquiry. congress must press to seek the truth and restore credibility to the newspaper industry and to get justice. we need to say on behalf of everyone in this country that we will not stand for the shameful and cruel practices we have seen. >> there is clear evidence of serious criminality on the part of some people that news international -- @ news international. i am referring it to call a pause for further evidence. >> will the attorney general confirm that news international

with their record of wrongdoing admitted so far, if they were to apply to run a minicamp in london, they would not receive a license. if they are not proper enough to do that, how can they be fit and proper to take over the monopoly of an entire television channel? >> we've seen an abuse of power on awesome scale. >> the story often moved at a bewildering pace. "the news of the world" was closed down. the chief of the paper was arrested. >> i can assure you i have never lied. all of the information i have provided has been given in good faith. >> you have to investigate people for doing wrong things.

you are now saying is because others did not cooperate with me that we did not get to the bottom of it. you have a responsibility for not investigating fully. >> i accept some of that responsibility. >> we're grateful that you do turn up and give evidence. however is the view of the committee that your evidence is not convincing and there are more questions to be asked about the way he conducted the review. >> i did not and could not. peter would not let me. if i had, peter would have been on me like a rash. >> this is more like clousea than columbo. >> i know they were investigated.

>> i do not know the time line. my recollection is those things happened before the arrest occurred. >> do you understand why everybody is so concerned this somewhere along the line, somebody failed to think this should be looked at? >> do not beat me up for being up front and honest. i am saying to you exactly what my aspirations have been. >> as a police officer, did you receive payment for many news organization? >> absolutely not. i cannot believe you have suggested that. i am not letting you get away with that. absolutely no way. chairman, that is not fair.

>> she is not getting away with anything. >> it is the same question she has put to all witnesses. >> that is an attack on my legitimacy. >> the committee is allowed to ask any questions they wish. it is a fair question to put in the public domain. she has put the question. you have given an answer. the answer is an unequivocal no. >> absolutely. >> labor called for the takeover of bskyb. >> many innocent men, women, and children in their darkest hour and boastful moments with no one

and nowhere to turn found their private lives, losses, and sorrows treated as the public property of news international. their most private moments were bought and sold for commercial gain. >> why was nothing done? >> if he felt it was right in 2003 that there should have been an inquiry into the meeting, why until last week was nothing done? >> i have listened carefully to the honorable member and his bravery of standing up to murdoch. does he regret the previous government held a slumber party for elizabeth murdock and?

>> and make no apologies for our relationship. i hope members on the other side will ask their leaders to set out what happened in the relationship of the party with news international. >> rebekah brooks resigned and was arrested. the head of the metropolitan police resigned. rupert murdoch and james murdoch appeared before the commons. >> what happened at "the news of the world" was wrong. we have apologized profusely for that. these are very serious matters. thee trying to establish facts of any new allegations as they come up. we're working closely with the police to find out where the wrongdoing was and to hold people accountable.

>> do you think it is possible that editors of your newspaper would not have known about these activities? >> i cannot say that because of the police inquiries. i presume there are coming judicial proceedings. >> at what point did you find out that criminality was endemic @ "the news of the world"? >> endemic is a very wide- ranging word. i also had to be extremely careful not to prejudice the course of justice taking place now. that has been disclosed. i became aware as it became apparent. >> mr. murdoch, had you

considered resigning since this occurred on your watch? >> no,. >> why not? >> i feel the people i trusted let me down. i think they behaved dreadfully and betrayed the company and me. it is for them to pay. i think i am the best person to clean this up. >> the prime minister returns to the commons from south africa. the term ends with the hacking story continuing to cause disruptions. >> i have said clearly if it turns out that andy coulson knew about the hacking, he would have and to me, the poll lice, would have perjured himself in a court of law. with hindsight, i would not have

offered him the job. i expect he would not have taken it. you do not make decisions in hindsight. you make them in the present. you live and learn. believe you me, i have learned. >> says in hindsight, he made a mistake by hiring mr. coulson. he said if mr. coulson lied, he would apologize. that is not good enough. >> it is not about hindsight. it is not about whether he lied to him. it is about all of the information and warnings that the prime minister ignored. he was warned. he preferred to ignore the warnings. >> what people really care about is the appalling revolutions of what has been going on in the newsrooms.

the public anger is expressly felt by thousands of hard- working and honest journalists and police officers. for that reason, it is essential that a police investigation should be completed as quickly as possible. the judicial inquiry should get under way and be completed as quickly as possible. can he give absolute assurance that they will be given the priority they should have been given a long time ago? >> will he now say that he accepts that all governments going back for 20 years have been far too close to the media giants in this country? that has to end. that means no more back door visits. >> in all the conversations, was there any mention of the bskyb

bid? >> perhaps now he will be transparent about all the contracts -- contacts he has had. >> outside of the westminster bubble, giving the impression that the nation has had the feel of this subject. -- i am getting the impression of the nation is fed up with this subject. it wants answers. there is an inquiry under way. that is where the answers will come. >> with that, parliament adjourned for the summer. rupert murdoch flew home after two dramatic days in britain. the hacking saga finally left parliament, at least for the parliament. if parliament allow itself to be taken over by a single story? >> has the response shown parliament at its best?

many would agree with him it is true the scandal has taken up a lot of parliamentary time. it is a huge story and generated great theater at westminster. it is a big store in new westminster village. does it matter is much to people at home? that is the really big question. mp's delayed their summer holidays to discuss the hacking scandal rather than the economic crisis in the united states and eurozone. >> that is it for our look at the summer term in parliament. "the record review" will return when parliament gets back in september. for now, did by. -- for now, goodbye. ♪ >> if you want to be informed

about what is happening in the world, it is not so hard. c-span has a digital online archive the go back to a 1987. you can basically whatch anythig that happened in the house or senate chambers on your screen. there are sources of information that were not imaginable 20 years ago. >> the c-span video library makes it easy to follow washington with instant access. it is all searchable, share a will, and free -- shareable, and free. the u.s. house returns to legislative businesses at noon today. on the agenda is $27.5 billion in interior department spending. over 100 amendments are expected.

extending the term of the current fbi director is among other legislation. debt and deficit reduction talks continued on capitol hill. here is the latest from a reporter covering the issue. >> talk us through what is going on regarding potential deals to raise the debt limit and bring down the national debt. we have alexander bolton on the phone. we are it this morning. there's a lot of talk shows speaker boehner and president obama had hoped to see something hammered out by last night. that did not happen. where do we stand this morning? >> talks have broken down. now the senate democrats and house republicans are on different paths. it looks like leaders in both chambers are pursuing the strategy of passing legislation to raise the debt limit that the

other side is not going to like, then sending it across the capitol to the other chamber, during their fellows in the other chamber to vote it down. what harry reid is putting together is trying to put together something that would raise the debt ceiling by $2.40 trillion, which is what is needed to take a spin on the 2012 election. he has already identified one puff $5 trillion in spending cuts and now needs to find another -- $1.50 trillion in spending cuts. we do not know exactly what is going to do, but is expected he is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase

plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if

this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the president has said he would have vetoed it anyway. is this seen as sort of a retread of the house republicans going their own way regardless of the lack of support in the other chamber? guest: well, yes, that is true. it is to the democrats are moving in with the plan that is not likely to have support in the lower chamber. this game of chicken has continued and will likely continue through the end of the week unless there is a negotiated compromise. right now, both chambers are moving on separate tracks. i think they're both thinking, once we send our pass our plan

and send it to the other chamber, it will have a tough time voting it down. and if they do, they can be blamed for stalling the economy, causing a national default. the two chambers are on a collision course right now. on the other hand, they or continuing to talk on the scene. they realize they do not want to have -- they realize both parties will be blamed and it is bad for pretty much everyone if there is an economic disaster as a result of failure to reach an agreement. john boehner and harry reid are talking and will talk around the clock. they have a pretty strong relationship. they established some trust in april when they worked to avoid the government shutdown because of the impasse of the 2011 spending bill. or spending levels. they will continue to try to find a negotiated compromise.

but they are living on separate tracks. host: is there a chance a short- term deal could surface? many folks involved said they prefer not to see that happen, but might that be a more realistic alternative to plans that developing in the house and senate? guest: white house chief of staff said yesterday obama would veto that. obama has been firmed throughout this debate he would veto a short-term debt limit increase. the problem from the standpoint of the administration is if you think it is tough now to get this increased, imagine in an election year? it will be even tougher. they do not want this fight next year. republicans are happy to have this fight again next year, something they can campaign on for november 2012. yes, it is something republicans are we want and they will be pushing this week. obama has been firm.

he will veto a short-term increase in the debt limit. host: publications have reported the white house was patel -- a relatively lying low. the president did meet with the democratic leaders. after on friday, he was heard a lot less this weekend. how much of the activity took place among the members of congress versus over in the white house? do you expect to see that pattern continued this week? guest: well, you are right. the president played a lower public role, less of an active public role this weekend. on the other hand, at the end of the weekend, nancy pelosi and harry reid met with him and talk the bottom line. he is very much involved. whatever passes both chambers of congress will have to pass the president. obama may take a lower profile

public glee as he has brought much of the debt limit debate, -- publicly ses threat much of the debt limit debate. i think he prefers -- i did his preferred scenario is to have democrats and republicans duking it out in the congress and then he can, in as the reconcile our, conciliator, father figure and, in and use his leverage, which is best saved until the end. that is something he did in april when he stepped in for late in the process to >> you can follow the debt ceiling debate here on c-span. we are going live to the u.s. house where members are returning to debate interior department spending for fiscal year 2012. and extending the term of two fbi director robert miller. fbi director robert miller.